FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Your views on the Laws of War?





alkady
Recently, I was reading this article on the Laws of War. Something I didnt even know existed and reading further, It really became rediculous as I found certain clauses.

For one, Did you know it is actually against these international Laws to impersonate the enemy, It is not permitted to ambush the enemy as civillians, aids workers or fellow soldiers.

The enemy must clearly indentify themselves by openly showing their weapons and must wear a different uniform.

It is actually illegal to attack a enemy who surrenders even if he is responsible for the death of someone close to you, It is against the rules to use inhumane weapons unless it is the last resort. (By inhumane, I'm talking items that cause unneccesary pain)

ect. ect. ect. I find it ridiculous, What about you guys? I know it's to protect the civillians so they know who to seek help and who to avoid and all that. But dont you think it goes to far. There is this one clause that states that it is a crime to take the enemy hostage and if any of these clauses are breached, The soldier in question if capture will not be classified as POW and exempt from the protection so they are subject to torture (Torture that is bound to happen anyway), humiliation and a unfair trial, If any.
Vrythramax
the "conventions of war" are most certainly indeed ridiculas (sp?). As you pointed out about identifying yourself as an a member of the opposition, did you also know that if you are caught wearing the uniform of the enemy you are not subject to the rights afforded a "prisoner of war"....and you can be shot immediatly without any trial or recourse.

Rules in war are kind of like speed limits at a racetrack. Yes they serve a purpose, but they are still rather obsurd.

Would you still happen to have a link to that article? I wouldn't mind reading it myself please.
HoboPelican
I have to go the other way, guys. I think the laws you both mentioned are very reasonable. The wiki says it better than I can...

Quote:
Purposes of the laws

It has often been commented that creating laws for something as inherently lawless as war seems like a lesson in absurdity. But based on the adherence to what amounted to customary international law by warring parties through the ages, it was felt that codifying laws of war would be beneficial.

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

* That wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction
* That wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible
* That people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

* Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
* Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
* Facilitating the restoration of peace.


Sure it seems silly to codify something chaotic like warfare. But isn't these the laws that are used to prosecute war criminals? Or do you see that has absurd also?
alkady
I got these Laws of Wikipedia so just type Laws of War.

HoboPelican wrote:
I have to go the other way, guys. I think the laws you both mentioned are very reasonable. The wiki says it better than I can...

Quote:
Purposes of the laws

It has often been commented that creating laws for something as inherently lawless as war seems like a lesson in absurdity. But based on the adherence to what amounted to customary international law by warring parties through the ages, it was felt that codifying laws of war would be beneficial.

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

* That wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction
* That wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible
* That people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

* Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
* Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
* Facilitating the restoration of peace.


Sure it seems silly to codify something chaotic like warfare. But isn't these the laws that are used to prosecute war criminals? Or do you see that has absurd also?


No there isnt anything wrong with Prosecuting War Criminals, But still the restrictions are a bit absurd. In a war your chances of getting killed are high. If you inpersonate the enemy, You will likely get killed, But at the same time you serve your dues to your country by getting rid of more of the enemy.
Vrythramax
HoboPelican wrote:
....Sure it seems silly to codify something chaotic like warfare. But isn't these the laws that are used to prosecute war criminals? Or do you see that has absurd also?


Upon reading my post it does seem that I am calling the codes themselves silly....and that was not my intent....I apologize for the confusion. The codes do indeed afford protections to a degree and they serve to in the restorations after the conflict is over....but you must admit that to even try to codify something so dynamic as a battle is an absurdity at best. No one is checking the rulebook while being shelled or shot at....they have only a few things on thier minds at that stage...and the rules of engagement aren't amoungst them.

As decorated VFW myself, I personally find war in and of itself no way to settle an arguement....war is the absurdity I am speaking of, not those who have to fight them...and certainly not those who have given the "Fullest Measure" of loyalty to thier countries (I think you know what that means).

Again, I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
HoboPelican
alkady wrote:

No there isnt anything wrong with Prosecuting War Criminals, But still the restrictions are a bit absurd.

How does one prosecute war criminals without laws? Reading back over this, that sounds flippant, but I am being serious. Without the structure of laws, any war crimes trial would be viewed as punishing the loser.

Max wrote:
but you must admit that to even try to codify something so dynamic as a battle is an absurdity at best. No one is checking the rulebook while being shelled or shot at



Hmm, I can't argue with you about the heat of battle.Or the absurdity of war either. I guess I just think codifing a less barbaric way to execute a war is a rationale way to progress to a future where wars are not needed. A distant, maybe impossible, goal, but "a man's reach should exceed his grasp", no?
alkady
HoboPelican wrote:
alkady wrote:

No there isnt anything wrong with Prosecuting War Criminals, But still the restrictions are a bit absurd.

How does one prosecute war criminals without laws? Reading back over this, that sounds flippant, but I am being serious. Without the structure of laws, any war crimes trial would be viewed as punishing the loser.


War Crimes is defined as the act of actions beyond the call of duty, It is define unnecesary harm towards civillians and unethical treatment toward the enemy in forms of torture or unhumane actions.

Ambushing them by making them believe that they are fellow soldiers shouldn't be a breach of the LoW, Because it's part of the war.

As a soldier, You should be worried more about doing your job and surviving and not making sure your killing your enemy according to protocol. Making sure your not killing him without making sure he knows your the enemy.

In a war, The benefits of impersonating is huge, Especially as a group. The enemy will trust you, They will fight by your side and when the moment comes, You get more done.

But when they can clearly indentify you, You become a sitting duck in a sense because your going to be the target all the time.

Lets take for example the War in Iraq, The Iraqi Military suffered more deaths than the Americans because they where less prepared, less equiped and sophisticated. One could have easily slipped as a Iraqi Soldier to capture Saddam Hussein on Day 1 when he was still in office. America would have won in a quick minute.
Idoru
Well, isn't it just a perfect point in the debate on the old issue: 'What are humans?'.

I'd say that it's nice, kind of like a boxing-match. You simply take the figthers,
line them up and equip them with arms. Then you proclaim the rules for how you
can and can not kill each other, so that the leaders of the victorious fighters
can proclaim new rules to obey. Most often the new rules say that you can't kill
each other at all, for it isn't civilized. But then again, sometimes you have to, why
there are cases when the leaders kept that right for themselves. Also, ofcourse,
clearly mentioned in the new set of rules.

Now is a good time to make the point clear, why I feel tempted to use a recentlly
debated word to summarize it - Unlogical.
HoboPelican
alkady wrote:


But when they can clearly indentify you, You become a sitting duck in a sense because your going to be the target all the time.

Lets take for example the War in Iraq, The Iraqi Military suffered more deaths than the Americans because they where less prepared, less equiped and sophisticated. One could have easily slipped as a Iraqi Soldier to capture Saddam Hussein on Day 1 when he was still in office. America would have won in a quick minute.


Well, I don't think anyone is gonna change their mind here Wink
I'll drop it for now, understanding your points about war being a no holds barred brawl. However, I will keep my belief that the rules of war offer a more civilized way to conduct it.

Peace, guys! Smile
Jack_Hammer
Of course there are laws of war. The Geneva conventions etc. make up most of the law, when something has been made (Anti-personal mines) for example and during wars been planted everywhere and as they have not been written down where they are (because that would give away where the mines are) they get left and civilians blow themselves up everyday because tehy didn't know they wee there, other include such things like no cluster bombs etc. Which we (The allies) have been found to be using in Iraq breaking some of these laws (We were found to be using illegal weapons, not the Iraqies).
intekmdma
alkady wrote:
It is actually illegal to attack a enemy who surrenders even if he is responsible for the death of someone close to you, It is against the rules to use inhumane weapons unless it is the last resort. (By inhumane, I'm talking items that cause unneccesary pain)


I think this one is a given. It's always been like that and although not everyone follows it (legally) it's still being done. I have talked to some of my army buddies and found out they do brutal things too! All these laws about how to fight sometimes don't even get used. Embarassed

Sometimes I think the army is the worst.
Jack_Hammer
P.S it is also to stop people attacking the red cross (The red crest), churches, nuclear plants, historical buildings, etc.
gh0stface
I find it kind of funny and sad that there are "rules" to govern on how you fight in a war.

In my opinion, when you're in a war, you do anything you can to win decisively and quickly. Sure these rules are nice to have, but war ISN'T a game.

Sometimes I wonder if these rules are why recent wars have been dragged out so long.
alkady
Jack_Hammer wrote:
P.S it is also to stop people attacking the red cross (The red crest), churches, nuclear plants, historical buildings, etc.


Yes, But I'm not against all the laws, Just some that are ridiculous. As I mentioned earlier in another post, You only get one shot at life. So the decisions is your to make. His life or yours?
Related topics
God of War
Justification for War in Iraq
irony: Liberal Church May Lose Funds Over Sermon
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
how many of the four cardinal virtues do you practice?
What if your beliefs are wrong?
Rules of War: Part I
The Middle East Conflict
America is you, no matter who you are
Gay adoption laws
Philosophy Essays & Philosophy Texts
How is religion harmful to society?
Sócrates
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.